On March 27, 2001, several children with disabilities, by and through their parents, filed a lawsuit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The ...
read more >
On March 27, 2001, several children with disabilities, by and through their parents, filed a lawsuit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiffs, represented by the Long Island Advocacy Center and private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the Defendants' delay in evaluating and assigning students with disabilities to proper classrooms caused these students irreparable harm with regards to their education. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claimed that although the Defendants had been in compliance with IDEA in years past, they had fallen behind in giving timely decisions for appeals cases. While the Defendants had given timely decisions in over 90% of all appeals cases during the 1990s, by 2001, they were only giving timely decisions in 2% of all such cases.
On October 1, 2003, the Court (Judge Joanna Seybert) issued an opinion granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 and IDEA claims, and dismissing the Rehabilitation Act claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Seybert noted that although the number of appeals cases had increased by over 20% in recent years, the Defendants were still required to comply with the terms of IDEA. She then entered an injunction certifying the class and requiring the Defendants to comply with the 30 day requirement for decisions of appeals. In order to assure the Defendants' compliance, the injunction also provided for 60 months of monitoring, during which the Court would retain jurisdiction for complaints of noncompliance. The Defendants were also required to pay the monitor's fee, and over $75,000 in attorney's fees and costs.
On January 16, 2009, the monitor submitted her final report, which recommended that the Court should not extend the monitoring period for this case. The Court agreed with her recommendation and closed the case on March 13, 2009.
Joshua Arocho - 07/27/2012
compress summary
